It might sound far-fetched. But greying hair is just the tip of a thread leading to the doubling of government spending on aged care and health to more than 13 per cent of the nation's gross domestic product over the next 50 years.

Baby boomers, the generation that rocked and ruled their way through super tax breaks, house price booms, free university education and Viagra-fuelled comebacks, are in no hurry to leave.

Related Articles

Those that have already reached 65 years are likely to live into their 90s, with some studies expecting large numbers could hit the ton before the sun sets on the Age of Aquarius. Their ageing - and fewer young people entering the workforce - is likely to blow a $900 billion hole in the budget by 2042.

These figures - which assume no massive spike in immigration - are based on calculations compiled 10 years ago. The likelihood is that number is now much higher.

Advertisement

In the lead-up to next week's federal budget, Treasurer Joe Hockey has been warning that solutions must be found. The volume of demand for aged care, the pension and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is outstripping the capacity of taxpayers to fund them, he cautioned last month. ''So the policies must be changed, either now or more dramatically in the future.''

Hockey's warnings are being echoed by economists, not-for-profit groups and (of course) the financial services industry.

Everyone agrees that something must be done. But that's where the consensus ends. Even the fundamental issue of financial advice has become mired in endless rounds of inquiries, consultation and changes to legislation.

One immediate measure is already well flagged, with the Abbott government to push back the retirement age in the budget to 70 years for Gen Y, the generation born in the 1980s, who will carry more of the financial burden imposed by their profligate predecessors. But there is no shortage of other ideas.

Former prime minister Paul Keating waded in this week with a proposed ''longevity levy'' to support the growing number of Australians who will live beyond the age of 80.

Hockey has also flagged a potential future increase in the superannuation preservation age - the age at which people can access their super savings.

A recent report by CPA Australia, based on analysis of more than 8000 households across the nation, claims boomers have already blown their super savings despite more than 20 years of generous tax concessions and compulsory contributions.

Boomers - those born between 1946 and 1965 - began collecting their train passes about eight years ago and have already run up debts equivalent to their retirement nest eggs on property for their children, school fees, credit cards, overseas holidays and partying like it's 2999, the 10-year research project finds.

They are also using super savings as a windfall to prop up lifestyles during their working lives rather than as an investment to be nurtured for the 25 years of retirement expected for the average person reaching 65 years, it adds.

There is a reasonable risk these wasteful ways will be emulated by younger generations, costing taxpayers billions of dollars in tax breaks, it warns.

It has triggered a new debate about whether the government should place limits on people taking a big cheque upon retirement, so that the money lasts as long as possible.

This has meant actuarial forecasts and smoking calculators at 10 paces, with annuity, pension and hybrid finance providers shooting it out for the trillion-dollar prize of providing income streams out of superannuation lump sums.

It's a controversial strategy that was recently overhauled by the British government after decades of concerns about high-cost, poor-value products being offered.

According to the Actuaries Institute, most people's superannuation account balances are increasing but ''will remain modest'' and will not be enough to meet even a modest lifestyle - regardless of whether it is paid out as a lump sum, converted to an income stream or ploughed into other investments.

A ''modest lifestyle'' is about $23,000 a year for a single and $33,000 for a couple, which is roughly the same as the age pension.

Pauline Vamos, chief executive of the Association of Super Funds of Australia, says that although people who receive super payouts of less than $100,000 may be tearing through the cash, people with more are often being more cautious and ''putting some away'' for their retirement.

''You've got to remember that for most Australians the mandated super system was designed to supplement, not replace, the state pension,'' says Vamos.

Despite the dire warnings about the pension's growing cost, over the next 40 years the percentage of retirees receiving an age pension will fall from about 80 per cent to 75 per cent. And the number receiving full age pensions will drop from 60 per cent to 35 per cent, according to actuarial studies.

It's more than 30 years since the first Hawke federal government identified the scale of the looming ageing population problem and began rolling out mandated superannuation. Since then more than $1.7 trillion in savings - bigger than the gross domestic product and the world's fourth largest pool of managed funds - has been accumulated.

Australia is much better off than most Western nations - but it's not enough. It is a system that, while decades old, is still grappling with fundamental questions about how its funds should be best managed, invested, expanded and spent.

And a billion-dollar industry has emerged around accumulating counting, managing, advising and distributing the funds for its owners.

Multiple inquiries featuring hundreds of submissions, thousands of recommendations, and tens of millions of dollars in legal and consulting fees have produced a library of laws and regulations that cover superannuation, financial advice and products.

The need for informed, independent financial advice is a crucial issue in the debate about funding retirements.

''People do not want more financial products, they just want quality, unconflicted advice and certainty,'' says Fausto Pastro, director William Buck Wealth Advisers.

Financial advisers claim the torturous recent Future of Financial Advice inquiry, has, so far, had the opposite outcome to what was originally intended - cheaper, better, more trustworthy advice.

''Prices have increased by 20 per cent,'' says Andrew Peters, managing director of Semaphore Private, a financial adviser, about the costs of professional licences and indemnity insurance.

Peters added: ''The original intention was to widen availability of independent advice, and that clearly has not happened. That means for those not willing to pay, it is personal advice or Google.''

Under the new system an investor seeking advice must first decide whether they want factual information, general advice or personal advice. What they are then told by their chosen financial adviser will be determined by whether this is classified as intra-fund advice, scaled advice, limited advice, or something called full advice.

It doesn't end there. Each of these categories is further complicated by different levels of professional competency, compliance requirements, disclosure requirements and fees within the financial advice profession.

Little wonder that thousands of fed-up, regulation-fatigued independent advisers have called it quits or sold their businesses to the banks or major investment companies, defeating the original intention of increasing the availability of independent advice.

This is making it tougher for professional groups such as the Financial Planning Association of Australia in its creditable task to boost the standing of certified financial planners.

Frustrated investors have taken more than $500 billion of their savings and placed them in self-managed schemes where they control the assets.

In the meantime, enough loopholes in advice laws for another review have opened up, further jeopardising investors' savings and increasing the likelihood that they will need to fall back on government support.

Organised international crime gangs and local spivs, such as the collapsed Trio Capital, have already taken big bites out of the trillion-dollar cherry and the Australian Federal Police have warned more are lining up- if not already here.

A casual scan through the computer mail of any financial adviser will routinely reveal some astonishingly brazen sidestepping of safeguards designed to strip out conflicts of interest from the financial advice industry.

Financial advisers are routinely being offered big commissions from developers to recommend real estate for their clients' SMSFs.

Regulators claim SMSFs are working well and that investment returns are matching industry benchmarks. But many fear that hot property prices and reckless borrowing could be a toxic mix.

The current financial system inquiry will grapple with these competing aspirations of individuals wanting to control their own financial destiny, and the feared blowout in public spending.

This week's expected announcements about retirement age will add another layer of complexity to a difficult issue.

Ian Silk, chief executive of AustralianSuper, which has more than 2 million members, says: ''Any changes must take into account the reality that many people cannot work until 65 years or beyond, because of their occupation and many will have been working and paying taxes since their teens.''

Politicians are also acutely aware that while the population grows older and slower, their constituents' age does not weary their vote.